Russian Literature XLIV (1998) 379-387 North-Holland VIOLENCE AND THE SACRED: VJACESLAV IVANOV AND WALTER BURKERT CAROL ANSCHUETZ The figure of Vjazeslav Ivanov as a poet’s poet and the magus of Symbolism in Russiahas eclipsed his figure as author of two brilliant studiesof the cult of Dionysus, the first of which is The Hellenic ReZ@onof the Suffering God (1903-1905)’ It was written in the same burst of insight as Pilot Stars (Korm&e zvezdy), his first collection of verse, and like both Pilot Stars and the better part of his vast subsequentproduction, it reflects Ivanov’s fascination with ecstasy as the stimulus for all human creativity. For that reasonThe Hellenic Religion has often beencited as a gloss to his lyric and dramatic poetry or a key to his critical and theoreticalessays. Yet it has never beenevaluated or even read in its own terms as a philological contribution to history and anthropology. Soviet scholarship assignedit to oblivion for its inconsistency with Marx and Engels and from more than fifty years of oblivion translation alone can rescueit - as it is indeed about to do. These remarks are made by the translator in eager anticipation of the broad res- ponsethat Ivanov’s book will no doubt elicit from scholarsand non-scholars alike when Yale Pressoffers it to the Westernpublic. The argument of The Hellenic Religion invites comparison with the argument of a profound and subtle book published by the Swiss historian Walter Burkert, now the foremost authority on sacrificial ritual and myth in pre-Homeric Greece. Burke&s book is Homo Necans (1972): “man the killer”. On the basis of inferences about pre-Homeric worship these books set forth two theories of the origin of religion, both of which involve a rela- tionship between violence and the sacred.The object here is to explore how 0304-3479/98/$19.00 0 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. 380 Carol Anschuetz each author deals with only one example of pre-Homeric ritual: the cult 01 the god and prophetZalmoxis, to whom the Getae,“noblest and most just of all the Thracian tribes”, offered human sacrifice in hope of immortality. The cult of this dying god is attestedin Herodotus 4.93-96. How does Walter Burkert lead us to interpret this text in Homo Necans? How does Ivanov interpret it in The Hellenic Religion? What do their conclusionsimply for the future of modern culture and the possibility of its renewal? Each of them undertakes,as an historian, to discover the nature and origin of religion, which both equatewith the origin of humanity. They pro- pose to discover it by hypothetically reconstructingthe ritual forms of pre- historic Greek religion. Moreover, in offering this reconstruction,each one addresseswhat he believes to be the central issue of his own contemporary society. Burkert addressesthe issue of human aggression.Ivanov addresses the issue of individuality that we know from Nietzsche.Although they wrote at different times and could not read each other, Burkert agreesfirmly with Ivanov on two cardinal points. One is that blood sacrifice was the earliest form of religious action and laid the foundationfor human culture in general and for the Christian eucharist in particular. The other is that, in blood sacrifice, the victim killed, be he man or beast,was always meant and felt to be human. Agreement on this point closes the door to potentially endless debatesabout whether the Greeks, the Hebrews or any other ancientpeople actually practicedhuman sacrifice - a point on which Ivanov and Burkert do not agree. Now for the god and prophetZalmoxis. Herodotustells us that he is the only god of the Getae.When it lightens and thunders,they aim their arrows at the sky and threatenhim. When they departthis life they believe they go to join him. Herodotus records a ritual in which the Getae act out this belief. Every five years they cast lots to chooseone man among them whom they designateas messengerto the god. They entrustthis man with requests.Then they send him off as follows. Seizing him by his hands and feet, they toss him up so he will fall on the upraised spearsof his fellow tribesmen. If he dies impaled on the spears,they say that Zalmoxis has blessed them. If he does not die, they hold him unworthy and chooseanother messenger.Here endsthe first part of Herodotus’saccount. The secondpart gives the view of Zalmoxis held by Greeks from the Hellespont and the Pontus. They identify him with a Thracian slave who once belonged to the philosopher Pythagorasat Samos. This slave, once freed, grew rich and returned to Thrace where, having already learned the doctrine of his former master and the ways of the Ionian Greeks, he wined and dined his simple countrymenin an especially designatedchamber where he taught them that neitherhe nor they, his guests,nor any of their descend- ants would ever die but would all go to a place where they would continue to enjoy every imaginable good. While wining and dining his countrymen he VjaZeslav Ivanov and Walter Burkert 381 was also digging the pit for a chamberunderground where he secretly with- drew once it was ready and where he remained for three years. For those three years he was mourned as dead. When he emerged from underground and showed himself to his companions,they believed the truth of what he had taught them aboutthe after-life. Since readersof Russian Literature can be expectedto know the work of Ivanov better than that of Burkert, let us take up Homo Necans first. For 50,000 years before he becamea farmer, man was a hunter and he continued to hunt five times longer than he has farmed. It was as a hunter that he made the transition from primate to homo sapiens.Man can virtually be defined as “the hunting ape”. Biologically he was not suited to be a hunter as the predatoryanimals are. But he had to kill in order to live, so he taught himself to hunt. Man did not merely compensatefor his biological deficiencies by making weaponsand using fire to temper them: he left women behind and worked cooperatively with other men rather than engagein the intraspecific aggressionprovoked by sexual or territorial rivalry. His energy,both psycho- logical and biological, found another object in the hunter’s quarry, which hunters treated as a quasi-humanenemy and a sacrificial victim. Killing be- came a ceremonial as well as a utilitarian activity. It beganwith preparation (abstinenceboth from women and from food), followed by the irrevocable “act” of killing an animal, which then provided a meal at which abstinence ceasedand restitution for the act of killing might be made. “A discussion of religion,” Burkert declares, “must be anything but religious,“3and he observesthat those who turn to religion for salvation from the evil of aggressionare confronted with murder at its very heart. His re- constructionof prehistoric ritual draws on Konrad Lorenz’s biological study, On Aggression (1963),read in the light of Sigmund Freud’s interpretationof the Oedipusmyth in the book entitled Totem and Taboo(1924). Burkert pro- ceeds from Lorenz’s study to argue that community is always founded on aggression,which in turn is linked with male sexuality. This he understands in terms of the Oedipal complex. The sonsof primeval man band togetherto murder their father for denying them his women but the father’s murder is avengedby the sons’ guilt. They renouncethe newly acquired women and engagein inordinate venerationof their father. Burkert concedesthat Freud’s interpretation is a myth, but discerns a grain of historical truth in it: “Con- scious killing is a kind of patricide,“4 and the hunting feast enjoyed imme- diately afterward is a kind of restitution for the guilt incurred by committing it. Konrad Lorenz defines ritual as a behavioral pattern that loses its pri- mary function - presentin its unritualized model - but which acquires in- steadthe function of communication.The ritualized behaviorpattern replaces reality with symbols, i.e. signs, whether verbal or non-verbal, in place of objects. In this new function ritual provokes and affirms social interaction; it 382 Carol Anschuetz fostersthe continuanceof group identity. It doesso by simulating reality and, should it fail in this, there may be a regressionfrom symbolism back to rea- lity itself.’ This meanshuman sacrifice and even cannibalism. In the rituals of the hunt and of blood sacrifice, aggressivebehavior is diverted from men to animals; however, in myth, which is a verbal form of communication, the as-if dimension of ritual becomesreality, and the sacrificial victim becomes human. This would explain to Burkert why Ivanov readsthe myths as evi- dence that human sacrifice was a fundamental institution in all prehistoric communities. Archeology confirms that, whetheror not gods were worshippedin the Paleolithic era, animal sacrifice did indeed occur, most often at burials, where it served to renew the memory of death. The sequenceof events in thesefunerary rituals correspondedto the sequenceof events in the hunt: ab- stinence, the “act” of killing itself, and then the funerary meal. However, there was anotheroccasion for sacrifice. This was the initiation of the young by confrontation with death in male societies formed in order to strengthen the community of men: Burkert usesthe word Miinnerbundto describethem. When man becamea farmer, thesemale societiesendured as secretsocieties where, in Burke&s expression,the activities wavered betweendemonic pos- sessionand horseplay.6Young men no longer learned to hunt and the sacri- fice performed at their initiation becameone at which the boy to be initiated was threatenedwith death, only to be replacedby an animal at the last mo- ment. It is sucha Miinnerbundthat Burkert discernsin the cult of Zalmoxis.